lawyer Paul Cambria said 90% of americans watch porn (hearings)

[donsu]

he was on Wash. Journal this a.m. as today he is the lawyer representing the porno industry at the hearings.

he said porn was considered intertainment and thus had the right to be on TV and pc.

but I protest the 90% figure he touted. the host asked where the percent came from and Cambria never quite said.

[NYCGirl]

1. And at least 8% more than that lie about it. NT

[bertha katzenengel]

2. Golly, there's another 10% I'm in.

Roughly 10% of Americans gay... 10% don't watch porn... I wonder what percentage of us is left-handed?

[havocmom]

3. The number one decides on would be determined by the definition of porn

one would use.

The old adage, 'I don't know much about art, but I know what I like', comes to mind.

He says potato, I say spud. :shurg:

[Gormy Cuss]

4. He must be including Fox News in that figure..

otherwise that percentage seems a tad high.

[napi21]

5. I didn't see WJ this AM, but I'm listening to the hearings on cspan1.

It's quite interesting. Talk about groups who are MILES apart on this subject!!!!

They have some head Dr. on now claiming all the problems with violence with our children stems from indecency and violence on TV!!!!

As a bit of credit to Sen. Stevens, he just asked this Dr. "Out children see violence in sports all the time! Are you saying that's just as damaging?"

[Solon]

16. I find this somewhat amusing ...

One thing that is interesting is that the most violent societies aren't the ones that have violence in movies or TV, but those that have it in real life. We watch many of the same movies and TV shows as Europe, Japan and other places in the world that don't nearly have our murder rate. Our movies are grossly violent, that is true, but we don't have exclusive rights to that type of cultural expression.

On kids and violence, well, the simple answer is that human beings are VIOLENT as a general rule, nothing so far has really changed that. Granted the violence is usually separated into two groups, acceptable violence and unacceptable violence. Just like in the old hunter-gatherer societies, if you killed one of your tribe for no reason, you were, by and large, exiled from the group, today we throw you in jail. However, if you killed another from another tribe that shared your hunting grounds, then you were a hero. Today we call that war, and the messed up part is that, for the longest time, till at least the middle of the 19th century, 13-14 years old was the threshold for manhood. As such, it was not only acceptable, but not even unusual to see boys(and sometimes girls) as young as 8 years old serving in armies.

Look to swabbies in the old imperial(British, Spanish, French) navies of the world, in the past, they were, on average, less than 13 years old, they carried guns when needed, and even killed enemies. Does anyone think that the US Continental Army back during the Revolutionary War actually checked IDs? Did they even care, I doubt it, they wanted to win a war, and you need warm bodies to do that, warm bodies whose only requirement was being able to carry a gun and follow instructions. Its not like this was or is a new phenomenon either, the Roman Empire, reknown for having one of the most disciplined armies in the world was able to get said army by requiring boys as young as 10 to be trained in the "arts of war".

Children are going to be exposed to violence and there is no way to prevent that unless we lock them up in isolation for the first 18 years of their lives. This includes not only the protrayal of violence on the TV or Movie screen but also in real life. Whether its fights with friends where you make up later, or seeing crimes in progress, the point is that kids today, in this country at least, have it BEST compared to other places in the world that still practice the age old practice of recruiting them young. This isn't to say that this is a good thing, on the contrary, just like slavery and women submission in the past and present today, this is another practice that needs to be eliminated from the world. However, this is not to say that we need to practice self or imposed censorship in the media. No, what we need to do is, rather that stick our heads in the sand and proclaim that if kids don't see it they won't do it, instead teach children anger management, violence prevention, and basically that, for most supposedly justifiable fights in the world, it simply isn't worth it. BTW: Zero tolerance policies only foster disrespect for law in general.

[donsu]

18. I disagree that violence is natural to humans. violence is a learned

condition.

[Solon]

23. Only the methods are learned...

Up until Homo Habilis or so, Humans weren't weapon makers, then we started creating stone spears and other tools that changed us from scavengers to hunters. Up till that point, we fled from other hunters, large cats and the like, or died. But that changed with the tools, now is was not just flight, but fight as well, especially for self defense or food. While our first made tools were the hammer and axe, used to break bone of dead animals, our most effective, and changing, were spears and knives. Human beings had to be violent to survive, but our intelligence actually created something that many other animals, with few exceptions, didn't have, motives other than food, mating, or defense(territory or themselves). Actually, if you get technical, we created mostly extraneous motives, because most things that humans beings do today are not far removed from what a mountain lion does, just a different, more technological way of doing it. Those things today that humans do from day to day usually revolve around either food, mating, or defense, and that includes violence toward others.

If you doubt me talk to a hunter, nothing beats the rush of a successful kill, we may dismiss that as unnatural, but it is anything but that. This is an instinctual response to stimulus, nothing to be ashamed of, though, nowadays, we actually have other endeavors that are considered less destructive that imitate the same rush, like riding roller coasters. Like I said in my previous post, we separate violence into two categories, acceptable violence, and unacceptable violence. Acceptable violence, in our society, for example, can be exemplified in hunting, contact sports, and war. Unacceptable violence is put into the category of murder, rape, etc. This is how societies are able to survive all this time, we create cultural or religious justifications to why these are separated, but its really nothing more than learned responses to instinctual behavior. After all, human beings, for all our ego, are nothing more than animals, and to be honest, there is nothing wrong with that.

[donsu]

29. hunting and fighting for survival I don't consider violence

hunting for fun is violence

murdering for love or power is violence

torture is violence

rape is violence

this violence is learned

[Solon]

37. Your redefining violence to fit your own preconceived notions...

on human nature. Look, if you have to physically dominate another, for ANY reason, then that is violence, doubly true if you draw blood. Look, violence, in and of itself, is a part of human nature, and much of nature at large as well. Let me put it this way, let's say you are alone in a dark alley, and you feel the hairs on your neck rise up, then you sense someone behind you, you don't see them, yet, but you know they are there. One of two things will happen, fight or flight. And get this, you didn't have to learn that at all, it may depend on your temperament, but either decision will usually not involve conscious thought. Oddly enough, this response is natural for kids as young as 5 to adults as old as 50. This isn't learned behavior, it is instinctual response.

Let me try a different way to state what I'm trying to say. Do people have to learn about sex? Actually the answer is both yes and no. OK, it is instinctual to be attracted and wanting to mate with another, depending on orientation for whether it is same sex or opposite sex. It doesn't take much for either men or women, as a general rule, to mate, but making it enjoyable takes practice and learning. :) Not to mention that safe sex,

In addition to that, mating for humans can be either as simple as rutting, or very elaborate and ritualistic in many cases. Actually, with few exceptions, it can be quite complex, but that also is for natural reasons. Humans are social animals, and as such, it helps the survival of both tribe and family for bonds beyond simple acquaintance to occur. Such family bonds are created by using ritualistic and extended mating periods. Is it any surprise that while for many animals in the world, sex usually lasts in the seconds, but for humans and a few other extremely social animals(Bonobos Chimps), it can last hours?

We used our intelligence to explain why we act this way, not the other way around, creating institutions like Marriage, ritual sex, and other methods to help create societal bonds and rules for behavior. And we gave a name for the emotions felt for those we mate with, we call it love. The same is true for our violent urges, not only do we have the "Fight or Flight" response to threats, but also another instinctual, hormonal response, to stimulus, anger. I could describe incidences where others had said or done something that made me want to punch them in the face, but I didn't, I suppressed a NATURAL urge to fight in response to what my "reptilian" brain perceived as a challenge. People do this day in and day out, just like they don't jump onto any attractive person we see on the street. This is learned behavior, telling people when it is appropriate or not appropriate to fight or mate. For mating, we already have outlets that are acceptable, such as going clubbing, and not so acceptable ones, like prostitution. But for the suppressed violent urges, its a little more complex. In some cases, its the contact that is exhilarating, in others, simply the competition. So we humans put our heads together and created sports that help us cope with those urges, like baseball for competition, boxing and wrestling for the physical contact, and football(American and world) for both.

The problem isn't so much that people actually have these emotions, instincts, and urges, day in and day out, its that some of us actually never learned to control them, or, in extremely rare cases, don't have the capability of controlling them. As someone once said, anger is natural, hate is learned. The same could be said for sociopaths, rapists, torturers, etc. In many cases, these behaviors are not even that far removed from what is called "normal" behavior in life. Obeying authority figures almost seems natural, and obeying them to torture can be seen as natural too. This is a little more complex, because, as many nature versus nurture arguments show, it is hard to separate the two. I can see an evolutionary reason for humans being bred as followers, but given the amount of revolutions and revolts that happen throughout human history, I would say that it is a learned behavior. All humans have the capability to either be an MLK or an Adolph Hitler.

[FreedomAngel82]

41. Look at Canada for example

Moore showed us the differences with his movie "Bowling for Columbine." That was a good movie.

[Solon]

46. Yes, exactly...

He looked at the issue in so many different ways and angles, and yet, by the end of the movie, the answer was there, but not nearly the simple sound bite that people always expect. The causes for unneccessary violence is most likely linked to not just poverty, but poverty without hope and being completely powerless to change your station in life. Through in the lack of a safety net and people will react violently.

[FreedomAngel82]

40. Don't they know what a remote control is?

I didn't know I lived in China now.

[Botany]

6. I was doing research ..... honest

So I googled "hot coeds w/ whips?"

I wanted to learn about those poor girls working in hot weather in skimpy outfits
moving along those little "doggies." And it was good to see that they got a chance
to have a big old shower together after work.

[mongo]

7. Not exactly sure what the statistic means either

Although I think it's safe to say that 90% of Americans have watched porn at some time.

[donsu]

17. how is that "safe to say" I disagree

nt

[mongo]

19. Ever flipped through a Playboy?

seen a few minutes of an Adult Movie?

You've watched porn.

[donsu]

21. does Playboy show pics of people in the midst of intercourse?

erotica is viewing the naked body.

isn't porn viewing the naked bodies doing sex?

[mongo]

24. Ah - the erotica defense

what you like is "erotica" - but what other people watch is "porn".

por·nog·ra·phy

1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material: “Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage to avoid the... pornography of the era” (Morris Dickstein).

And just for fun, Ohio's definition of "obscenity": ORC 2907.01

(F) When considered as a whole, and judged with reference to ordinary adults or, if it is designed for sexual deviates or other specially susceptible group, judged with reference to that group, any material or performance is "obscene" if any of the following apply:

(1) Its dominant appeal is to prurient interest;

(2) Its dominant tendency is to arouse lust by displaying or depicting sexual activity, masturbation, sexual excitement, or nudity in a way that tends to represent human beings as mere objects of sexual appetite;

(3) Its dominant tendency is to arouse lust by displaying or depicting bestiality or extreme or bizarre violence, cruelty, or brutality;

(4) Its dominant tendency is to appeal to scatological interest by displaying or depicting human bodily functions of elimination in a way that inspires disgust or revulsion in persons with ordinary sensibilities, without serving any genuine scientific, educational, sociological, moral, or artistic purpose;

(5) It contains a series of displays or descriptions of sexual activity, masturbation, sexual excitement, nudity, bestiality, extreme or bizarre violence, cruelty, or brutality, or human bodily functions of elimination, the cumulative effect of which is a dominant tendency to appeal to prurient or scatological interest, when the appeal to such an interest is primarily for its own sake or for commercial exploitation, rather than primarily for a genuine scientific, educational, sociological, moral, or artistic purpose.
--------------------------------------
I can be arrested for selling a Playboy. Pretty tough to get a conviction on that though.

[donsu]

31. mongo does the twist

nt

[mongo]

35. What exactly did I twist?

You asked for a definition and I gave it.

[FreedomAngel82]

42. From what I understand it's that definition

[longship]

8. Just over 50% of Americans are women!!!

Is this numbnuts trying to say that most of them watch porn also?

What a noodle brain.

[NYCGirl]

10. Lots of women watch (or have watched) porn. You'd be surprised. NT

[khashka]

12. I wouldn't be surprised

:)

Especially since we now (thank the goddess!) have porn made by women for women. A lot of the old porn actresses are now directing and producing - making movies that women will enjoy. That's a huge step forward. And quite an eye opener for men :)


Khash.

[sendero]

20. Bingo...

.... if he'd said that 90% of MEN watch porn, I don't think I'd argue with that too much. It is quite possible. But 90% of women? No way. Women are just not as stimulated by the visual as men are, and there are other reasons I won't go into. My guess is that less than 50% of women watch porn, probably a lot less.

[longship]

22. Well, I for one am one of the 10% who do *not* watch porn.

I guess voyeurism isn't my bag. I cannot believe that anywhere near 90% of people watch porn.

[mongo]

25. You've NEVER seen a Playboy

or a few minutes of an Adult movie?

[renie408]

33. I drive right by several churches every day and I am still an atheist n/t

[Momgonepostal]

34. How are we defining "watch" porn?

His wording sounds like 1) some thing ongoing, like watch on a regular basis and 2) "watch" sounds like a movie or TV program, not a magazine. Yes, magazines are visual, but who really says "watch" when they are talking about print?

I've never ever caught a glimpse of an adult movie, but have seen a Playboy. I don't think that really puts me in the 90 percent, though.

[NYCGirl]

36. We never got an exact quote from the OP, so it's difficult to tell. NT

[longship]

51. No, I do not read Playboy, and I do not go to skin flicks.

For the past three decades I've chosen that "No Porn" is my way. I just don't like it.

[sendero]

38. I think there might be a distinction..

.... between folks who have at one time watched porn, and those who do so on a regular basis.

[StellaBlue]

48. I don't think it's that 'women are not as visually stimulated'

which is usually the reason given...

I think it's that most porn is male-created, male-fantasy, anti-woman, violent, plastic-breasted CRAP that makes women feel VERY uncomfortable.

[mongo]

49. I agree with most of your adjetives

about MOST porn. However, most porn is NOT violent -- that's another bit of propaganda the anti-porn forces like to throw around.

[sendero]

50. While ..

... I would totally agree that porn is made for men, I know of several attempts to make porn for women - more romantic, less explicit, etc. As far as I know, none of them are selling anything like "mainstream" male-audience porn. Gotta be a reason.

[StellaBlue]

52. yeah, porn is stupid

Women would rather be with a REAL man. Which is why we don't understand when our partners want porn AND us. And sometimes would prefer the former. Bizarro!

Personally, I don't like any porn enough to buy it, or even seek it out on the internet, though I did looooove sneaking a peek at it when I was about 13 and sexually maturing and incredibly curious. But now, having had real experiences, I feel like I've grown out of it. But men never do. :shrug: I don't even look at any free porn on the internet, much less PAY for it. But I AM visually stimulated. We just don't find c*cks very attractive, that could be a big part of the problem. Hence, women like to see Jude Law or Brad Pitt movies rather than porn movies.

Just my ideas, thrown out there. I don't like porn and think it's insidious in our culture now, and, generally, bad for male-female relationships, but I think it should be 100% legal as long as all participants are 18 and consenting. I am not averse to the possibility of seeing a porno that I would LIKE, but, usually, after the first five minutes of novelty wears off, I just find myself feeling quite uncomfortable and silly.

[f-bush]

9. I define porn as.......

as having to listen to any republican open his/her mouth and sound is coming out of it. Anything they say is obscene to me!!!!

[khashka]

11. I don't know the exact numbers

I don't think anyone does... but they are pretty high. Porn is a multibillion dollar industry and only proliferating with the Internet.

But what's the big deal? And why do some people feel a need to get between me and my prurient interests? Don't these people have better things to do?

Khash.

[onenote]

13. sounds like a pretty dubious number

Its more people than the right wing would like to admit (and way more right wingers than they could ever admit), but 90 percent? Not likely, unless you include every person that at any point in their life has thumbed through a copy of Playboy. There are considerably more than 10 percent of all Americans that don't have a computer. And subscription rates for "porn" services (assuming you include Playboy as porn) aren't that high. Just sounds like a number plucked out of thin air to me.

onenote

[mongo]

15. Um, Playboy is pornography

and I'm reasonably sure that 90% of Americans have watched porn at some point.

[onenote]

43. you're right, but one doesn't "watch" playboy

If what Cambria is talking about is how many adult (ages 18 to 110) Americans have, at least once in their life, "seen" porn, he's certainly right that its a big number. Whether or not its "90 percent" or something above or below that number probably can't be determined with any degree of accuracy. Logic suggests its less than 90 percent unless you want to postulate that men and women have seen porn in similar percentages or that essentially 100 percent of males and 80 percent of women have "seen" porn.

But by using "watch" (assuming that the OP is accurate in describing what Cambria said), he seems to be talking not about magazines, but about video -- television, VCR/DVD, movie theaters, Internet. And the numbers just don't add up to get to 90 percent from those sources. Fewer than 80 percent of homes have a computer. DVD and VCR penetration also is below 80 percent. The percentage of homes without cable or satellite is around 13 percent according to the Consumer Electronics Industry (and the broadcast industry and the consumer federation argue that this estimate is too low) and only a very small percentage of cable/satellite customers subscribe to adult programming services. And the number of theaters showing porn, and the size of the audiences attracted by those theaters (unless we're defining porn as any R rated movie) is quite small.
In short, even if everyone who currently has ready access to porn by having a computer, a dvd player, a vcr, cable or satellite adult programming, or lives relatively close to an "x-rated" movie theater, was "watching" porn, the percentage would be significantly below 90 percent.

onenote

[plcdude]

14. sounds a little too high

to me but the real issue is the definition of pornography. A lot of stuff that used to be "adult" entertainment is being demonized by conservation religious factions as porn. Are we including literature in this definition? Many women enjoy romance novels that could fit into the concept of porn. This is really an enterprise in ignorance.

[renie408]

26. He just pulled that figure out of his ass. And using his stats, 9 out of

10 Americans would have liked to watch while he did it.

[mongo]

27. Another one whose never ever seen a Playboy?

Wow. I didn't think there were that many people outside of Utah that had never seen porn.

And Paul Cambria doesn't win court cases by pulling numbers out of his ass.

[renie408]

28. There is a difference between having seen porn and seeking it out.

Or supporting it.

Using your standard of 'watching' porn, then yeah, I am sure that 90% of Americans have 'seen' porn. Just like 96% of them 'believe' in God.

[mongo]

30. Well, I guess that Paul Cambria

didn't "pull that number out of his ass" then.

[renie408]

32. Did you also stick your tongue out when you wrote that? And if you did

do you have a webcam? Supposedly 90% of Americans would be interested in watching.

[Solon]

47. Actually, it sounds to me like the Masturbation stats...

60-70% of people do it, and the other 30-40% lie about doing it. And think about it, that's a "low-ball" figure! :)

[FreedomAngel82]

39. With that issue

if someone wants to watch it that's their personal issue. If it's a child under eighteen they should have parental guidance. Now days tv comes with blocking channels and the like so there's lots of ways to protect your kids in the house. Same thing with the internet. You can get the internet which has parental guidance on it. Other wise what an adult does in his/her own time should be fine. Only thing I object to is of course child pornography but if it's an adult that's their business.

[NYCGirl]

44. I agree 100% on what you say about consenting adults.

But child pornography is a crime, period.

[FreedomAngel82]

45. So let's see

there's an illegal war going on and thousands dying every minute, elderly are having trouble getting medicine, 45-46 million people are without health care (including myself), college grants have been gutted, NCLB isn't funded, the enviornment is in poor health, NSA spying on Americans, insider trading in our government and a fascists judge is about to be on the SCOTUS and they're worried about what a person does in the privacy of his/her own home? If it's not child pronography than it shouldn't be of any concern at this point in time. There are other major issues to worry about.